Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Stephen Bosch]

shadowym wrote:
> Whatever your many reasons, using that stuff for Asterisk is a waste of money 
> but go crazy if you want!

Well, all I can say is, you're clearly not dealing with my clients. They 
want the phones to work. Always. When they don't work, the clients get 
very, very angry at me.

-Stephen-

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Drew Gibson]

Hi Raul,

I think that Bacula is going to cause you many headaches with Asterisk. 
Backups are (surprise!) I/O intensive and when streaming data from the 
network to disk or tape it will saturate the available bandwidth. This 
will cause the I/O wait time on the CPU to run high and effectively 
block other processing (eg. voice traffic) for seconds at a time. Try 
running a full backup during office hours and see what your users have 
to say!


My recommendation is to move either Asterisk or Bacula to a separate 
machine.


regards,

Drew


Raúl Gómez C. wrote:

Well, this has become a hot topic! :p

Thinking about my original post, I was reluctant of installing my PBX 
on a shared system, is a Dell PowerEdge 2950 with 2 Intel Xeon Dual 
Core CPUs @2GHz (4 totals cores) and 4GB RAM which serves as Domain 
Controller and File Server (Samba), central backup server (Bacula with 
a LTO2 external tape drive), it has dual NIC in a bonding alb mode and 
redundant PSU (each one connected to a different UPS). It has a PCI 
slots in which I can install my Sangoma Remora A400D card.


But now I think the PBX will work just fine in this system, maybe 
breaking the channel bonding and dedicating a NIC for the PBX and the 
other NIC for the remaining task, what do you think? Or its better to 
install the PBX on a dedicated system? Let me know your opinions!


Regards...

Raul


On 10/12/07, *Mojo with Horan & Company, LLC* 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:



You're correct, it IS 100 -- but 100%.  Expressed in decimal format,
this is of course 1.0 -- and as each cpu has this average, 4.0
indicates
that no threads regularly wait for execution.  This worldcommunitygrid
you mentioned binds your cpu by design it sounds like.




___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users



--
Drew Gibson

Systems Administrator
OANDA Corporation
www.oanda.com

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[shadowym]

Whatever your many reasons, using that stuff for Asterisk is a waste of money 
but go crazy if you want!

-Original Message-
From: Shaw Terwilliger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 1:29 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for 
Asterisk?

shadowym wrote:
> I hope I am not opening a can of worms here but IMHO there is 
> ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO USE SCSI anymore!  For sure not for this 
> application but most other things too.  SATA is mature now, does 
> command queuing, and works well on 2.6 kernels.  Oh, there is the 
> issue of cost as well.

This is just not true.  If you want the best performing drives out
there today, you'll be using SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) or Fibre
Channel.  There are still 3.5" LVD SCSI drives (the old parallel style)
that beat the pants off the fastest competing SATA drives because they
spin at 15K RPM and have longer MTBFs.  Yes, these drives cost more than
SATA, but there are many reasons to use them.

-- 
Shaw Terwilliger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SourceGear LLC




___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Raúl Gómez C.]

Thanks Matthew and every one who had replied to my post!

I will install my Sangoma A400D card on my existing server and I will give
it a try, since we have the old PBX still working (its planned to be on
operation until the end of this year) it will serve as a lab, and if there
is much trouble we still have some time to order a new server and migrate
the configs made. In that case, I will buy a server with a FSB1333 CPU. I
don't know if we can afford a 3GHz CPU, but I'll keep it in mind.

I think for Asterisk a SATA RAID(1 or 5) will be enough, but I will buy SAS
disc if it fits in the budget ...

Thanks everyone!

Raúl

On 10/15/07, Matthew J. Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Raúl,
>
> The short answer is yes, it's better to install Asterisk on a dedicated
> system.  The long answer is that you could probably get away with it,
> but if you have problems you'll be dealing with a lot of variables
> during troubleshooting.  When that time comes, I wouldn't be surprised
> if the first piece of advice people give you is to offload the non-VoIP
> related tasks from the server.
>
> For 35 simultaneous calls, I'd recommend a dedicated server with a 3.0
> GHz dual-core CPU, 2 GB of RAM, and fast SCSI disks.  In my experience,
> the FSB can be just as important as processor speed so keep that in mind
> as you lay out your budget.  You should be able to buy something from
> Dell with redundant power supplies (and other convenient features like a
> remote access controller) for an affordable price.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matthew Roth
> InterMedia Marketing Solutions
> Software Engineer and Systems Developer
>
>
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Shaw Terwilliger]

shadowym wrote:
> I hope I am not opening a can of worms here but IMHO there is 
> ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO USE SCSI anymore!  For sure not for this 
> application but most other things too.  SATA is mature now, does 
> command queuing, and works well on 2.6 kernels.  Oh, there is the 
> issue of cost as well.

This is just not true.  If you want the best performing drives out
there today, you'll be using SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) or Fibre
Channel.  There are still 3.5" LVD SCSI drives (the old parallel style)
that beat the pants off the fastest competing SATA drives because they
spin at 15K RPM and have longer MTBFs.  Yes, these drives cost more than
SATA, but there are many reasons to use them.

-- 
Shaw Terwilliger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SourceGear LLC

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[shadowym]

I hope I am not opening a can of worms here but IMHO there is ABSOLUTELY NO 
REASON TO USE SCSI anymore!  For sure not for this application but most other 
things too.  SATA is mature now, does command queuing, and works well on 2.6 
kernels.  Oh, there is the issue of cost as well.

-Original Message-
From: Matthew J. Roth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for 
Asterisk?

Raúl Gómez C. wrote:
> Thinking about my original post, I was reluctant of installing my PBX 
> on a shared system, is a Dell PowerEdge 2950 with 2 Intel Xeon Dual 
> Core CPUs @2GHz (4 totals cores) and 4GB RAM which serves as Domain 
> Controller and File Server (Samba), central backup server (Bacula with 
> a LTO2 external tape drive), it has dual NIC in a bonding alb mode and 
> redundant PSU (each one connected to a different UPS). It has a PCI 
> slots in which I can install my Sangoma Remora A400D card.
>
> Or its better to install the PBX on a dedicated system? Let me know 
> your opinions!
Raúl,

The short answer is yes, it's better to install Asterisk on a dedicated 
system.  The long answer is that you could probably get away with it, 
but if you have problems you'll be dealing with a lot of variables 
during troubleshooting.  When that time comes, I wouldn't be surprised 
if the first piece of advice people give you is to offload the non-VoIP 
related tasks from the server.

For 35 simultaneous calls, I'd recommend a dedicated server with a 3.0 
GHz dual-core CPU, 2 GB of RAM, and fast SCSI disks.  In my experience, 
the FSB can be just as important as processor speed so keep that in mind 
as you lay out your budget.  You should be able to buy something from 
Dell with redundant power supplies (and other convenient features like a 
remote access controller) for an affordable price.

Regards,

Matthew Roth
InterMedia Marketing Solutions
Software Engineer and Systems Developer





___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Philipp Kempgen]

Matthew J. Roth wrote:

> For 35 simultaneous calls, I'd recommend a dedicated server with a 3.0 
> GHz dual-core CPU, 2 GB of RAM, and fast SCSI disks.  In my experience, 
> the FSB can be just as important as processor speed so keep that in mind 
> as you lay out your budget.  You should be able to buy something from 
> Dell with redundant power supplies (and other convenient features like a 
> remote access controller) for an affordable price.

But have a look at
http://www.digium.com/en/docs/misc/compatibility_notes.php
first although you're not planning to use a card from Digium.

I'd never use Dell again. Too many problems.

Regards,
  Philipp Kempgen

-- 
amooma GmbH - Bachstr. 126 - 56566 Neuwied - http://www.amooma.de
Let's use IT to solve problems and not to create new ones.
  Asterisk? -> http://www.das-asterisk-buch.de

Geschäftsführer: Stefan Wintermeyer
Handelsregister: Neuwied B 14998

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Matthew J. Roth]

Raúl Gómez C. wrote:
> Thinking about my original post, I was reluctant of installing my PBX 
> on a shared system, is a Dell PowerEdge 2950 with 2 Intel Xeon Dual 
> Core CPUs @2GHz (4 totals cores) and 4GB RAM which serves as Domain 
> Controller and File Server (Samba), central backup server (Bacula with 
> a LTO2 external tape drive), it has dual NIC in a bonding alb mode and 
> redundant PSU (each one connected to a different UPS). It has a PCI 
> slots in which I can install my Sangoma Remora A400D card.
>
> Or its better to install the PBX on a dedicated system? Let me know 
> your opinions!
Raúl,

The short answer is yes, it's better to install Asterisk on a dedicated 
system.  The long answer is that you could probably get away with it, 
but if you have problems you'll be dealing with a lot of variables 
during troubleshooting.  When that time comes, I wouldn't be surprised 
if the first piece of advice people give you is to offload the non-VoIP 
related tasks from the server.

For 35 simultaneous calls, I'd recommend a dedicated server with a 3.0 
GHz dual-core CPU, 2 GB of RAM, and fast SCSI disks.  In my experience, 
the FSB can be just as important as processor speed so keep that in mind 
as you lay out your budget.  You should be able to buy something from 
Dell with redundant power supplies (and other convenient features like a 
remote access controller) for an affordable price.

Regards,

Matthew Roth
InterMedia Marketing Solutions
Software Engineer and Systems Developer


___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[shadowym]

That's kinda high then.  I wouldn't be happy about that either.  You
shouldn't be over 30% ever for anything real time.  Instantaneous spikes can
really start to make your life miserable at that point.

-Original Message-
From: Erik Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:44 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for
Asterisk?

On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
> loadavg of 3.

The system he mentioned had 8 cores, though.  So a load average of 3
is less than 50% usage.

-erik




___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 03:31:09PM +0200, Philipp Kempgen wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> 
> > The loadavg is the average number of threads[0] ready to run (or running).
> 
> To me it seems that there are important differences between
> systems, especially Linux/Unix, as of which of the states in
> following are counted in:
> - running (i.e. using the CPU)
> - runnable (i.e. waiting for their turn)
> - uninterruptible sleep (i.e. waiting for disk/network I/O)

Load average is for both "running" and "runnable".

The test is simple: 


a 100% cpu loop is easy to create  (while :; do :; done   in bourne
shells such as bash, pick your favorite environment. Run as many as you 
want).


Strangely enough in Linux the load avarage includes also processes in a
"uninterruptable sleep" (state "D" in top and ps, as opposed to "S",
which is where processes normally are).

Processes staying long in uninterruptable sleep usually mean a trouble
of some sort.

> 
> Without knowing how your kernel calculates the loadavg the
> usefulness of this value is very limited.
> 
> > We are all well
> > familiar with a single CPU and single core systems. In those systems
> > only one thread can execute at each time. If the load average is greater
> > than 1 it means that there on the average[1] at least one process
> > waiting for the CPU and not getting executed immediately.
> 
> So what you're implying is that only runnable (i.e. waiting)
> threads are counted, not running threads.

Running threads sure are counted.

> The question is if there are any differences on a multi-CPU
> system. Waiting threads would still be waiting threads, no
> matter how many CPUs /could/ run the thread /if they were idle/.
> Is that correct?
> 
> The mistake people often seem to make is to assume that
> loadavg == cpu usage.

It is a good indication. Even a better indicaton to the ammount of
threads ("processes") starved for CPU time.

-- 
   Tzafrir Cohen   
icq#16849755  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+972-50-7952406   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Philipp Kempgen]

Tzafrir Cohen wrote:

> The loadavg is the average number of threads[0] ready to run (or running).

To me it seems that there are important differences between
systems, especially Linux/Unix, as of which of the states in
following are counted in:
- running (i.e. using the CPU)
- runnable (i.e. waiting for their turn)
- uninterruptible sleep (i.e. waiting for disk/network I/O)

Without knowing how your kernel calculates the loadavg the
usefulness of this value is very limited.

> We are all well
> familiar with a single CPU and single core systems. In those systems
> only one thread can execute at each time. If the load average is greater
> than 1 it means that there on the average[1] at least one process
> waiting for the CPU and not getting executed immediately.

So what you're implying is that only runnable (i.e. waiting)
threads are counted, not running threads.
The question is if there are any differences on a multi-CPU
system. Waiting threads would still be waiting threads, no
matter how many CPUs /could/ run the thread /if they were idle/.
Is that correct?

The mistake people often seem to make is to assume that
loadavg == cpu usage.

> So what we really want to know is if a certain thread of Asterisk was
> waiting in the run queue too long. Asterisk should not need to wait when
> presented with a voice frame to move around. Is there any more direct
> way of checking that?

Not that I know of. But from your posts on this list I got
the impression that your knowledge of what happens inside
the kernel is a bit deeper anyway.

Regards,
  Philipp Kempgen

-- 
amooma GmbH - Bachstr. 126 - 56566 Neuwied - http://www.amooma.de
Let's use IT to solve problems and not to create new ones.
  Asterisk? -> http://www.das-asterisk-buch.de

Geschäftsführer: Stefan Wintermeyer
Handelsregister: Neuwied B 14998

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 05:29:24PM +0200, Philipp Kempgen wrote:
> Atis Lezdins wrote:
> 
> > I have 8-core system that has web interface + sql + java + some other stuff 
> > running, and at 30 simultenous calls i get loadavg maximum of 3.
> 
> I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
> loadavg of 3.

The loadavg is the average number of threads[0] ready to run (or running).
In your typical desktop system it is 0, because the CPU is mostly idle.

But why do we care so much about the load average? We are all well
familiar with a single CPU and single core systems. In those systems
only one thread can execute at each time. If the load average is greater
than 1 it means that there on the average[1] at least one process
waiting for the CPU and not getting executed immediately. Maybe one 
thread of Asterisk uses the CPU and another thread is waiting for it.

So what we really want to know is if a certain thread of Asterisk was
waiting in the run queue too long. Asterisk should not need to wait when
presented with a voice frame to move around. Is there any more direct
way of checking that?

[0] Recall that the CPU executes threads, regardless to which process
they belong. Two different threads of he same process and two different
processes are the same for this discussion.

[1] There are three different loadavg numbers: for the last minute, for
the last five minutes and for the last 15 minutes. 

-- 
   Tzafrir Cohen   
icq#16849755  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+972-50-7952406   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Philipp Kempgen]

Raúl Gómez C. wrote:

> Thinking about my original post, I was reluctant of installing my PBX on a
> shared system, is a Dell PowerEdge 2950 with 2 Intel Xeon Dual Core CPUs
> @2GHz (4 totals cores) and 4GB RAM which serves as Domain Controller and
> File Server (Samba), central backup server (Bacula with a LTO2 external tape
> drive), it has dual NIC in a bonding alb mode and redundant PSU (each one
> connected to a different UPS). It has a PCI slots in which I can install my
> Sangoma Remora A400D card.
> 
> But now I think the PBX will work just fine in this system, maybe breaking
> the channel bonding and dedicating a NIC for the PBX and the other NIC for
> the remaining task, what do you think? Or its better to install the PBX on a
> dedicated system? Let me know your opinions!

Apart from the fact that it's always better to have a
dedicated system it really depends on how busy the
server is right now and how much load you expect from
your PBX.
I wouln'd use a machine already busy with serving files
as a PBX but it may work just fine.

Regards,
  Philipp Kempgen

-- 
amooma GmbH - Bachstr. 126 - 56566 Neuwied - http://www.amooma.de
Let's use IT to solve problems and not to create new ones.
  Asterisk? -> http://www.das-asterisk-buch.de

Geschäftsführer: Stefan Wintermeyer
Handelsregister: Neuwied B 14998

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Erik Anderson]

On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
> loadavg of 3.

The system he mentioned had 8 cores, though.  So a load average of 3
is less than 50% usage.

-erik

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Mik Cheez]

Sorry...I should have been more specific in my original reply.

 >>> In 'top', you can always look at what percentage of your CPU is
 >>> idle. Subtract that from 100 and you've got your load average.

I should have said you get your average load percentage, rather than 
just average load.

Mik Cheez wrote:
> Actually, that looks right...look at your load average...
> 
> Steve Totaro wrote:
>> I don't think that is correct.  I am running worldcommunitygrid and this 
>> is what I get
>>
>> top - 13:18:56 up 3 days, 22:49, 1 user, load average: 4.00, 4.04, 4.02
>>
>> Cpu0:0.0%us,0.7%sy,99.3%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
>> Cpu1:0.0%us,0.0%sy,100.0%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
>> Cpu2:0.0%us,0.3%sy,98.0%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,1.7%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
>> Cpu3: 0.0%us,0.7%sy,99.3%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
>>
>> According to what you are saying my load average should be 100.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steve
>>
>> Mik Cheez wrote:
>>> In 'top', you can always look at what percentage of your CPU is idle. 
>>> Subtract that from 100 and you've got your load average.
>>>
>>> Cpu(s):  1.1% us,  0.6% sy,  0.0% ni, *98.1% id*,  0.1% wa,  0.1% hi, 
>>> 0.0% si
>>>
>>> Erik Anderson wrote:
 On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think there is a formula like
> cpu usage = loadavg / #cpus
>
> A loadavg of 3 says that there are 3 processes waiting to
> be executed.
>
> Anyway, I'll admit that a loadavg of 3 /might/ be ok.
 Here's a quote from this page:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_%28computing%29#Unix-style_load_calculation

 "For systems with multiple CPUs, the number needs to be divided by the
 number of processors in order to get a percentage."

 - Erik

 ___
 --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

 asterisk-users mailing list
 To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users


>>> ___
>>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>>
>>> asterisk-users mailing list
>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>
>> asterisk-users mailing list
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>>
>>
> 
> ___
> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
> 
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> 
> 

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Raúl Gómez C.]

Well, this has become a hot topic! :p

Thinking about my original post, I was reluctant of installing my PBX on a
shared system, is a Dell PowerEdge 2950 with 2 Intel Xeon Dual Core CPUs
@2GHz (4 totals cores) and 4GB RAM which serves as Domain Controller and
File Server (Samba), central backup server (Bacula with a LTO2 external tape
drive), it has dual NIC in a bonding alb mode and redundant PSU (each one
connected to a different UPS). It has a PCI slots in which I can install my
Sangoma Remora A400D card.

But now I think the PBX will work just fine in this system, maybe breaking
the channel bonding and dedicating a NIC for the PBX and the other NIC for
the remaining task, what do you think? Or its better to install the PBX on a
dedicated system? Let me know your opinions!

Regards...

Raul


On 10/12/07, Mojo with Horan & Company, LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> You're correct, it IS 100 -- but 100%.  Expressed in decimal format,
> this is of course 1.0 -- and as each cpu has this average, 4.0 indicates
> that no threads regularly wait for execution.  This worldcommunitygrid
> you mentioned binds your cpu by design it sounds like.
>
>
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Mojo with Horan & Company, LLC]

Steve Totaro wrote:
> I don't think that is correct.  I am running worldcommunitygrid and this 
> is what I get
>
> top - 13:18:56 up 3 days, 22:49, 1 user, load average: 4.00, 4.04, 4.02
>
> Cpu0:0.0%us,0.7%sy,99.3%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
> Cpu1:0.0%us,0.0%sy,100.0%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
> Cpu2:0.0%us,0.3%sy,98.0%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,1.7%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
> Cpu3: 0.0%us,0.7%sy,99.3%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
>
> According to what you are saying my load average should be 100.
>   
You're correct, it IS 100 -- but 100%.  Expressed in decimal format, 
this is of course 1.0 -- and as each cpu has this average, 4.0 indicates 
that no threads regularly wait for execution.  This worldcommunitygrid 
you mentioned binds your cpu by design it sounds like.


___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Mik Cheez]

Actually, that looks right...look at your load average...

Steve Totaro wrote:
> I don't think that is correct.  I am running worldcommunitygrid and this 
> is what I get
> 
> top - 13:18:56 up 3 days, 22:49, 1 user, load average: 4.00, 4.04, 4.02
> 
> Cpu0:0.0%us,0.7%sy,99.3%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
> Cpu1:0.0%us,0.0%sy,100.0%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
> Cpu2:0.0%us,0.3%sy,98.0%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,1.7%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
> Cpu3: 0.0%us,0.7%sy,99.3%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
> 
> According to what you are saying my load average should be 100.
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve
> 
> Mik Cheez wrote:
>> In 'top', you can always look at what percentage of your CPU is idle. 
>> Subtract that from 100 and you've got your load average.
>>
>> Cpu(s):  1.1% us,  0.6% sy,  0.0% ni, *98.1% id*,  0.1% wa,  0.1% hi, 
>> 0.0% si
>>
>> Erik Anderson wrote:
>>> On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 I don't think there is a formula like
 cpu usage = loadavg / #cpus

 A loadavg of 3 says that there are 3 processes waiting to
 be executed.

 Anyway, I'll admit that a loadavg of 3 /might/ be ok.
>>> Here's a quote from this page:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_%28computing%29#Unix-style_load_calculation
>>>
>>> "For systems with multiple CPUs, the number needs to be divided by the
>>> number of processors in order to get a percentage."
>>>
>>> - Erik
>>>
>>> ___
>>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>>
>>> asterisk-users mailing list
>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>
>> asterisk-users mailing list
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>>
>>
> 
> 
> ___
> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
> 
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> 
> 

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Friday 12 October 2007 11:10:02 Gordon Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> > On Friday 12 October 2007 10:29:24 Philipp Kempgen wrote:
> >> Atis Lezdins wrote:
> >>> I have 8-core system that has web interface + sql + java + some other
> >>> stuff running, and at 30 simultenous calls i get loadavg maximum of 3.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
> >> loadavg of 3.
> >
> > I dunno, 3 wouldn't be terrible on a 4 processor or 8 processor system,
> > which isn't getting to be nearly as rare as it once was.
>
> Don't get too hung-up on load average under Linux. It's not always
> indicative of the real "load" on the machine, it merely indicates the
> number of processes running, or avalable to run - so if a process is
> waiting on IO, it's 'running' and will get counted. I've seen servers (non
> asterisk) with huge load averages but ones which were still usable because
> the processes were waiting on IO from a slow device, (eg. remote NFS
> mounts) so there was plenty of CPU left for computational tasks, etc.
>
> So 3 threads reading or writing to/from a TDM card might well spend most
> of their time waiting for the IO to complete (clock in/out the A/D, A/D
> convertors for example), give a load avg. of 3, yet the CPU should be
> avalable for other tasks like shoveling RTP data over Ethernet for
> example...

Are you saying that Linux makes no differentiation between long and short
wait states?  That would be a fairly major abrogation of the spec.

I do know of a legal way (under the definition) to drive a load average
higher:  simply release the processor resource prematurely with either a
usleep(1) or a sched_yield().  The definition of load average depends
implicitly upon a process using its entire timeslot on the processor; if a
process does significantly less, the load average will rise without a
corresponding increase in actual CPU work.

-- 
Tilghman

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Steve Totaro]

I don't think that is correct.  I am running worldcommunitygrid and this 
is what I get

top - 13:18:56 up 3 days, 22:49, 1 user, load average: 4.00, 4.04, 4.02

Cpu0:0.0%us,0.7%sy,99.3%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
Cpu1:0.0%us,0.0%sy,100.0%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
Cpu2:0.0%us,0.3%sy,98.0%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,1.7%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
Cpu3: 0.0%us,0.7%sy,99.3%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st

According to what you are saying my load average should be 100.

Thanks,
Steve

Mik Cheez wrote:
> In 'top', you can always look at what percentage of your CPU is idle. 
> Subtract that from 100 and you've got your load average.
> 
> Cpu(s):  1.1% us,  0.6% sy,  0.0% ni, *98.1% id*,  0.1% wa,  0.1% hi, 
> 0.0% si
> 
> Erik Anderson wrote:
>> On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I don't think there is a formula like
>>> cpu usage = loadavg / #cpus
>>>
>>> A loadavg of 3 says that there are 3 processes waiting to
>>> be executed.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'll admit that a loadavg of 3 /might/ be ok.
>> Here's a quote from this page:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_%28computing%29#Unix-style_load_calculation
>>
>> "For systems with multiple CPUs, the number needs to be divided by the
>> number of processors in order to get a percentage."
>>
>> - Erik
>>
>> ___
>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>
>> asterisk-users mailing list
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>>
>>
> 
> ___
> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
> 
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> 
> 


___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Mik Cheez]

In 'top', you can always look at what percentage of your CPU is idle. 
Subtract that from 100 and you've got your load average.

Cpu(s):  1.1% us,  0.6% sy,  0.0% ni, *98.1% id*,  0.1% wa,  0.1% hi, 
0.0% si

Erik Anderson wrote:
> On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't think there is a formula like
>> cpu usage = loadavg / #cpus
>>
>> A loadavg of 3 says that there are 3 processes waiting to
>> be executed.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll admit that a loadavg of 3 /might/ be ok.
> 
> Here's a quote from this page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_%28computing%29#Unix-style_load_calculation
> 
> "For systems with multiple CPUs, the number needs to be divided by the
> number of processors in order to get a percentage."
> 
> - Erik
> 
> ___
> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
> 
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> 
> 

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Erik Anderson]

On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think there is a formula like
> cpu usage = loadavg / #cpus
>
> A loadavg of 3 says that there are 3 processes waiting to
> be executed.
>
> Anyway, I'll admit that a loadavg of 3 /might/ be ok.

Here's a quote from this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_%28computing%29#Unix-style_load_calculation

"For systems with multiple CPUs, the number needs to be divided by the
number of processors in order to get a percentage."

- Erik

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Philipp Kempgen]

Erik Anderson wrote:

> On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
>> loadavg of 3.
> 
> The system he mentioned had 8 cores, though.  So a load average of 3
> is less than 50% usage.

I don't think there is a formula like
cpu usage = loadavg / #cpus

A loadavg of 3 says that there are 3 processes waiting to
be executed.

Anyway, I'll admit that a loadavg of 3 /might/ be ok.

Regards,
  Philipp Kempgen

-- 
amooma GmbH - Bachstr. 126 - 56566 Neuwied - http://www.amooma.de
Let's use IT to solve problems and not to create new ones.
  Asterisk? -> http://www.das-asterisk-buch.de

Geschäftsführer: Stefan Wintermeyer
Handelsregister: Neuwied B 14998

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Gordon Henderson]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Tilghman Lesher wrote:

> On Friday 12 October 2007 10:29:24 Philipp Kempgen wrote:
>> Atis Lezdins wrote:
>>> I have 8-core system that has web interface + sql + java + some other
>>> stuff running, and at 30 simultenous calls i get loadavg maximum of 3.
>>
>> I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
>> loadavg of 3.
>
> I dunno, 3 wouldn't be terrible on a 4 processor or 8 processor system, which
> isn't getting to be nearly as rare as it once was.

Don't get too hung-up on load average under Linux. It's not always 
indicative of the real "load" on the machine, it merely indicates the 
number of processes running, or avalable to run - so if a process is 
waiting on IO, it's 'running' and will get counted. I've seen servers (non 
asterisk) with huge load averages but ones which were still usable because 
the processes were waiting on IO from a slow device, (eg. remote NFS 
mounts) so there was plenty of CPU left for computational tasks, etc.

So 3 threads reading or writing to/from a TDM card might well spend most 
of their time waiting for the IO to complete (clock in/out the A/D, A/D 
convertors for example), give a load avg. of 3, yet the CPU should be 
avalable for other tasks like shoveling RTP data over Ethernet for 
example...

Gordon

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Friday 12 October 2007 10:29:24 Philipp Kempgen wrote:
> Atis Lezdins wrote:
> > I have 8-core system that has web interface + sql + java + some other
> > stuff running, and at 30 simultenous calls i get loadavg maximum of 3.
>
> I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
> loadavg of 3.

I dunno, 3 wouldn't be terrible on a 4 processor or 8 processor system, which
isn't getting to be nearly as rare as it once was.

-- 
Tilghman

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Philipp Kempgen]

Atis Lezdins wrote:

> I have 8-core system that has web interface + sql + java + some other stuff 
> running, and at 30 simultenous calls i get loadavg maximum of 3.

I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
loadavg of 3.

Regards,
  Philipp Kempgen

-- 
amooma GmbH - Bachstr. 126 - 56566 Neuwied - http://www.amooma.de
Let's use IT to solve problems and not to create new ones.
  Asterisk? -> http://www.das-asterisk-buch.de

Geschäftsführer: Stefan Wintermeyer
Handelsregister: Neuwied B 14998

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Raúl Gómez C.]

Hi Gerald,

Well we have 2 APC UPSes in the server room, so each power supply will be
connected to one UPS, and the UPSes are connected to (a transfer system of)
an auxiliary power generator that start in less than a minute after a
blackout. The server will have RAID5, of SAS disc

But thanks for bringing up to my notice the needs for a quick replacement of
my TDM hardware (FXO ports).

On 10/11/07, Gerald A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uptime is nice, but you want your system
> to be reliable when it's needed.
>
> Rather then buy a fancy fancy box, think
> carefully about what is precious and make sure that is robust.
>
> If you need your voicemail always available, think about some
> kind of mirror or RAID. If you are using TDM hardware (direct
> to some type of phone interface) check how long it will take to
> get a replacement, or keep one on "warm" standby. Redundant
> power supplies are fancy, but a good UPS is probably worth more.
>
> It's easy to buy a system with lots of bells and whistles -- just
> make sure they are the right kind. And your clunker might make
> a good lab/warm backup box.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Gerald.
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Matthew J. Roth]

Erik Anderson wrote:
> For this load level (even with high-load transcoding), a multi-core
> machine certainly would not be needed.  That said, it certainly
> wouldn't hurt anything to add on extra cores, especially if they're
> free ;-)
Raul,

The points concerning overall load are valid, but I agree with Erik's 
statement about getting the extra cores if they are free.  Asterisk is 
heavily multi-threaded (one thread per channel plus several core 
threads), so a system with 35 simultaneous calls will happily balance 
the load across 8 (or more) cores.

Regards,

Matthew Roth
InterMedia Marketing Solutions
Software Engineer and Systems Developer


___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Erik Anderson]

On 10/11/07, Raúl Gómez C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> At this point I was wondering if Asterisk gets real benefits on systems with
> several cores (up to 8 in Dell PE2950) for a system that will handle up to
> 35 simultaneous SIP call with 10 FXO ports and 2 FXS for analog phones/fax
> (Sangoma A400D PCI card).

For this load level (even with high-load transcoding), a multi-core
machine certainly would not be needed.  That said, it certainly
wouldn't hurt anything to add on extra cores, especially if they're
free ;-)

-erik

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for Asterisk?

[Atis Lezdins]

> At this point I was wondering if Asterisk gets real benefits on systems
> with several cores (up to 8 in Dell PE2950) for a system that will handle
> up to 35 simultaneous SIP call with 10 FXO ports and 2 FXS for analog
> phones/fax (Sangoma A400D PCI card).

I suppose that yes. Asterisk uses pthread, and it should distribute load 
across multiple cores.

However, i doubt that you will need that much for 35 simultenous calls.

I have 8-core system that has web interface + sql + java + some other stuff 
running, and at 30 simultenous calls i get loadavg maximum of 3.

Regards,
Atis


-- 
Atis Lezdins
VoIP Developer,
IQ Labs Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skype: atis.lezdins
Cell Phone: +371 28806004
Work phone: +1 800 7502835

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users